If you’re saying that offensive and defensive efficiency of your opponents is what determines your strength of schedule, then I would agree. However I don’t think that’s how SOS is determined, is it?
Daily Tracking the NET: now 102
- Thread starter bac2therac
- Start date
Good to know.
What doesn’t make sense to me is when we have a really bad offensive performance like we did at home vs PSU, it still only counts for one loss but it pulls our average efficiency down slightly for the whole season.
Doesn’t seem right, especially if you have a few of those early on but you finish strong with say, 19 wins including 9 out of your last 11, and you’re still only a bubble team because your “efficiency” was crap early, which dragged down your average efficiency for the whole season.
When the committee takes into account average efficiency for the whole season, on top of win-loss record and SOS, isn’t that just another way of double-counting?
#43 SMU has been very “efficient” while beating bad and mediocre teams. Their best win (and only quad 2 win) is by 11 at #97 Florida St.
0-3 vs quad 1
1-3 vs quad 2
It’s silly really.
Fibonacci would even know better.
That SMU ranking of #43 is absurd, with them being 1-6 vs Quad1/Quad2.
By comparison RU at #86 is 5-9 vs Quad1/Quad2.
Hopefully Rutgers plays SMU in the First Four…
I disagree. Our 4 best halves against Maryland and Michigan second halves and entire Wisconsin game saw our offensive efficiency improve significantly which is a component of NET. Also , the key for Rutgers going forward based on those 4 halves is reduce the turnovers. Maryland first half 12 turnovers , offensive efficiency .683 and Michigan first half 10 turnovers , offensive efficiency .883.
Now compare to second half Maryland 2 turnovers and 1.13 offensive efficiency and second half Michigan 3 turnovers and 1.22 offensive efficiency . Then Wisconsin only 5 first half turnovers and only 1-2 second half and offensive efficiency was well over 1.10 per possession. It is directly correlated and now that we are offensive rebounding again and hopefully converting that offensive efficiency number can really go up. Then show committee those numbers offensively since we have had Jeremiah , coupled with our ridiculously good defensive efficiency numbers then for last 11 games with Jeremiah those numbers translate to a top 15 team. Will make a huge difference in my opinion.
💯 when you're not a good shooting team, valuing possessions is even more important
Yes, I understand that having good offensive and defensive efficiency helps you win games. My point is, so long as you win enough games (against a relatively strong schedule) why should the committee care how you did it?
If we win games with the #2 defense and the #200 offense from now on, I don’t think our wins should be negatively affected by our poor offensive efficiency, especially with our solid SOS.
Seems like we’re getting dinged twice when we lose at home to a Quad3 PSU, because we also had a horrendous offensive efficiency in that game.
Billy , I understand . But what I am saying that if we continue the sharp upward trajectory of our offensive efficiency along with our normal defense in a win , our Net will get better quickly. If we beat Wisconsin, Minnesota , Purdue or Nebraska on the road and by at least 10 points , we can go up 12-20 spots in the Net. A win against Wisconsin like the one we just had , but now on the road gets us up a 20 spot. Maybe 10 for Minnesota , maybe 15 for Nebraska and 20 for Purdue and Wisconsin.
That makes a huge difference. If we make this run and still have a 70-80 Net as compared to a 50 -60 Net that is a huge difference and the latter result makes it likely to be received favorably by the Committee
Only wins and losses should matter for this IMO. It's not betting against the spread here.
Wins and Losses should be the primary metric in a system with relative parity where all teams play the majority of other teams.
The Big Ten, for instance. There's relative parity within the conference, and each team plays the others at least once, and sometimes twice. There's some variance in schedule difficulty if you get multiple of the best teams twice and another team gets the lowest teams twice... but it's not a huge difference. Wins/losses determine ranking within the conference.
Now look at the MEAC. Same story, when looking within the conference games themselves.
But is a team that's 9-5 in the MEAC better than a team that's 8-6 in the Big Ten? No.
You need to rank the teams in another way.
If wins/losses aren't really representative of quality across a field of teams so widely varied in strength, you need to look at a different metric.
Enter efficiency. Kenpom and Barttorvik both base their rankings primarily on efficiency, making some adjustments, and so does NET.
If your DEff is usually 93.0, you'd be expected to fare even better than that against a team whose OEff is less than 93.0 already, but worse against a team whose OEff is 105.0... which leads to adjusted efficiency numbers. How good is your efficiency when taking into account your opponent's average efficiency in their other games?
We played good defense against Stonehill but truly, truly awful offense.... and that resulted in a 1-point win against a bad team. Our OEff was 84.7 that game.... but when taking into account the poor level of Stonehill's DEff (116.2), that number gets adjusted down to 80.3
That poor performance is part of our record, and it informs our overall ranking. If we'd beaten Stonehill by 40 (like we beat similarly-ranked Columbia last year), that would also be part of our record.
The Big Ten, for instance. There's relative parity within the conference, and each team plays the others at least once, and sometimes twice. There's some variance in schedule difficulty if you get multiple of the best teams twice and another team gets the lowest teams twice... but it's not a huge difference. Wins/losses determine ranking within the conference.
Now look at the MEAC. Same story, when looking within the conference games themselves.
But is a team that's 9-5 in the MEAC better than a team that's 8-6 in the Big Ten? No.
You need to rank the teams in another way.
If wins/losses aren't really representative of quality across a field of teams so widely varied in strength, you need to look at a different metric.
Enter efficiency. Kenpom and Barttorvik both base their rankings primarily on efficiency, making some adjustments, and so does NET.
If your DEff is usually 93.0, you'd be expected to fare even better than that against a team whose OEff is less than 93.0 already, but worse against a team whose OEff is 105.0... which leads to adjusted efficiency numbers. How good is your efficiency when taking into account your opponent's average efficiency in their other games?
We played good defense against Stonehill but truly, truly awful offense.... and that resulted in a 1-point win against a bad team. Our OEff was 84.7 that game.... but when taking into account the poor level of Stonehill's DEff (116.2), that number gets adjusted down to 80.3
That poor performance is part of our record, and it informs our overall ranking. If we'd beaten Stonehill by 40 (like we beat similarly-ranked Columbia last year), that would also be part of our record.
Got it, thanks, and I agree that we have to maximize the existing system to our benefit.
What I was trying to say is that the system itself is wacky.
Something is wrong when wins against a strong schedule count less than wins against a weaker schedule by a team that was more ‘efficient’.
How else to explain SMU at #43 NET being 1-6 vs Quad 1 and 2, while RU is #86 with a 5-9 record vs Quad 1 and 2? RU at #86 seems right, but SMU at #43 seems absurd. If it’s due to their ‘efficiency’ then efficiency is just a bogus additional factor to consider.
In my mind total wins multiplied by a strength of schedule factor is all that should matter, not how efficient you were in getting those wins, or whether you did it with dominant defense versus offense.
Margin of victory also shouldn’t matter, so I’m glad to hear that is no longer part of the NET calculation. If you play up or down to your competition is irrelevant as long as you win.
We weren’t even giving ourselves a chance first half MAryland with those 12 most unforced turnovers and with those 10 first half Michigan turnovers again almost all unforced. We corrected the mindless careless turnovers and played good basketball 4 of the last 5 halves (Maryland second, Michigan second , Wisconsin both halves ) . You cannot even get a shot up to go get a rebound , it was doubly bad
Even if you take efficiency out of it entirely, SMU has one double-digit loss by 13 to Texas A&M, and four single-possession losses..... we have 5 double digit losses, including to a sub-par PSU team, and our losses haven't been close. They also annihilated their opponents ranked 290+, and we squeaked out a 1-point win over Stonehill.
SMU has played better against the opponents on their schedule when adjusting for strength than we have. They are 47 in kenpom and 39 in bart. NET isn't some anomaly.
Yes the Net is wacky and frankly one of its components is still unknown which is why analysts cannot figure out why a certain team has that Net.
Now , I disagree about totally taking away margin of victory. Our beat down of Wisconsin by 22 was a huge statement that should have been rewarded more. Similarly Texas Tech beating Kansas by 29 last night should have counted doubly and Kansas should have been punished more than they were 5-6 spot slide. It is different today. Teams leave their starters in until a minute left even up 20 but that applies to both teams so 20 point wins should be rewarded even more in my opinion. Blowouts of non Power teams should be discounted but blowouts of Power teams should mean more.
So then efficiency counts more than actual wins against Quad 1 and 2 teams? That makes no sense to me.
To beat a Quad 1 team, you need to overcome their net efficiency. Purdue has an AdjEM of 32.00 on KenPom. Their AdjO is 125.4 and their AdjD is 94.4 - if you beat them, that means you scored more points per 100 possessions than they did, which is overcoming a lot. The "average" team loses to them by 32 across 100 possessions... if you play them much closer than that, it's a positive to your overall ranking.
By contrast, a Quad 4 team like Stonehill has an AdjEM of -22.52. Their Adj0 is 91.1 and their AdjD is 113.7 - the "average" team beats them by more than 22 points over 100 possessions. If you beat them by just 1 point, that's a negative hit to your overall ranking.
This Thursday we play Northwestern (AdjEM of 14.97) and we are at an AdjEM of 9.99. On a neutral floor, the expectation is that they'd be better than us by 5 points across 100 possessions - which makes for an expected close game. If we win by 20, that's going to bump us up in AdjEM... if we lose by 20 it's going to bump us down.
I know and my point is that it shouldn’t be between Power Conference teams playing one another and now that teams do not take out their starters either at all or with only a minute left in a blowout. The blowout was earned and needs to be rewarded.
We have had a year where like 45 unranked teams have beaten ranked teams. Could be a record. But when an unranked team , no where close to being ranked , beats a high ranked team by 22 or 29 points like Rutgers and Texas Tech just did to Wisconsin and Kansas that has to be given double credit somehow.
He is wrong. Needs to get his calculator out of his a$$
The issue with using efficiency metrics for selection stuff is that in this case it would give the nod to team A:
Team A: 1-4 record. All four losses by three or fewer, the win was by 30.
Team B: 3-2 record. All three wins by three or fewer, both losses by double digits. Same SOS as Team A.
Now Team A is maybe the *better* team but winning and losing has to mean something otherwise what are doing?
Team A: 1-4 record. All four losses by three or fewer, the win was by 30.
Team B: 3-2 record. All three wins by three or fewer, both losses by double digits. Same SOS as Team A.
Now Team A is maybe the *better* team but winning and losing has to mean something otherwise what are doing?
I see what you’re saying. I guess the reward is that you get credit for beating a Quad1 team, helpful if you’re on the bubble, and in the NCAA tournament the reward is that you advance to the next round.
It’s not explicitly, but net efficiency margin is basically the same thing (it’s just margin of victory per possession instead of per game)
Yeah I mean the end game of something like that is that the final possession of a 20 point game means the same as the final possession of a 1 point game. And maybe there’s even logic to that, but at the end of the day sports are about fun and there is nothing fun about that.
Without knowing the quality of the 5 opponents, the comparison is meaningless. Go 1-4 against MEAC schools vs. 3-2 against the five best teams in the country? Or vice versa? If both records were against the same exact 5 opponents, who would you think would fare better against a shared 6th opponent?
They don't just take the top NET teams and throw them into the NCAA tournament. NET is just a sorting tool to help identify whether the wins and losses are against better/worse programs. That's where the rest of the team sheet comes in. What's your overall record against each quadrant, and home vs. away, etc?
The NIT this year is using NET as a true selection tool - but I don't think I mind that as much, because you've already been left out of the tournament and they're taking the "best of the rest" in the strongest conferences.
They also lost 3 less games…
St Bonnies is the anomaly. How can you be ranked in the top 75 with 2 awful Q4 losses along with getting swept by Duquesne? No wins vs. likely tournament teams either.
Also 4 point win over Longwood. 6 point win over Bucknell. 4 point win over UMass. All at home. One point neutral win over Akron. 2 point win over Oklahoma St. Not exactly a resume compiled of only blow out wins and close losses to good teams.
Last edited:
Even with the same SOS. Playing 5 teams ranked 48-52 is different than playing teams 1, 2, 50, 99, and 100, even though the overall SOS would be almost the same. Adjusted efficiency levels all of that out in a way that W/L can't.
But even if it were the same exact 5 opponents - if those two teams then played each other, which team would be expected to do better? The team with four close losses and one blowout win.... or the team with three close wins and two double-digit losses?
I think the first team is “better” and would (specific matchup issues or whatever aside) be more likely to win a head to head against the second team. But I’d choose the second team for the tournament.
Yes - because the metrics are just a sorting tool to help the selection committee make evaluations, and not meant to be the sole selection criteria. And also, the 4 teams that beat Team A would likely get slightly more credit for it in the final ranking of teams than the 2 teams that beat Team B.
I’d hope not if Team B makes the field and not Team A. I don’t care how efficient team A is. Losing more often not only makes you not a tourney team but it makes wins over you less impressive. Wins over field teams matter.
Not sure what you're arguing here.
I agree with fluox on this - Team B would be my choice in a binary between those two to make the field, because selection isn't based on metrics alone. The "better team" is not always the one with the "better resume" - but it's your resume that should get you into the Dance.
But also, if given the choice of which team I'd rather Rutgers face in the first round, I'd pick Team B over Team A - because I'd rather go up against the team that got close wins and blown out twice than the team that had close losses and blew someone up.
Also, not sure how the two groups of teams could have the "same SOS" without some ranking metric behind the scenes somewhere. And if the SOS is based on W/L like RPI, rather than something rooted in net efficiency, then those two groups aren't necessarily so similar in strength. The team sheets include both NET SOS and RPI SOS, which can be dramatically different from one another.
Last edited:
Imagine if the same 5-game pattern between Teams A and B repeats itself 6 times in a 30-game season. Team A would have 6 wins and Team B would have 18 wins. But hey, the efficiency metrics say Team A is better.
It’s pretty unlikely for that to happen though. And if it did happen how would you distinguish between team B being better and team A just being unlucky?
In that case, neither make the tournament. An 18-12 team with 12 double digit losses and 18 single-possession wins is the luckiest team on the planet, but is likely in the NIT.
And a 6-24 team with 6 blowout wins and 24 single-possession losses is the unluckiest team on the planet, and isn't sniffing the postseason.
Still, if all of those games were against average opponents, and our season came down to beating one of these two teams.... I know who I'd rather face.
I would liken it to baseball, where a team wins 3 out of every 5 games with pitching and defense then get shellacked in their other 2 games. They can win 96 games but their overall efficiency will look bad for the year.
Some luck is involved but mostly it’s just how the team performs on any given night versus their competition, especially when the talent level is in the same ballpark (pun intended).
Bonnies do have a quad 1 win at VCU (and also beat VCU in upstate NY) and VCU just picked up a nice win vs #18 NET Dayton. VCU also has a win over Penn State. The good news for Rutgers is that they have plenty of quality-win opportunities ahead. Some of the mid-major teams with better NETs than RU right now have to practically win out the rest of the way to avoid slipping down in the NET.
Baseball is different because of the fact that you are using different pitchers all the time. That doesn’t really extend well to other sports.
